Jhonny007

That's quite a good point you have there

Hello, I'd like to discuss the weight restriction of the launch pad. Me personally, I don't like it. Because it doesn't allow you to build cheap rockets early on, making SRBs not useful. In my opinion the only advantage of SRBs is the cost/thrust ratio giving you cheap, but uncontrolled access to space. Espacially when you are planning big and expansive missions. But exactly at that point, where you want to save as much as possible, because your mission is so close to you going bankrupt. you can't use the SRBs, because they are to heavy. What do you think. I would prefer, if the launchpad would just restrict you in size. Jhonny

Hello, I'm making this post because I feel that career mode is too restrictive and short. For example: I'm a guy, who plans big missions. In our example I plan a Duna mission including a 10 Kerbal base on the surface. To do this I need only a few things things from higher tier: - Advanced Landing -> for Heavy landing legs - Advanced Electrics -> for efficient solar panels - Specialized Constuction -> Hitchhiker Container + Docking ports - Heavier Rocketry -> 2.5m engine But to get those few things I have to research half the techtree. It doesn't feel like I've the ability to chose which part of the techtree I want to advance in. It feels like I have to get most of it anyways. The current techsystem was introduced as a way to allow players to choose what they wanna do, whenever they want. So that they aren't stuck with a personal set goal, that they no longer want to pursue. But in reality the current system allows you to only do 1 - 2 big interplanetary missions before completing the tech tree. I'm personaly dissapointed everytime I planned my career mode to be this epic journey of conquering space, building bases and spreading through the whole Kerbolsystem to advance Kerbal technoligies and just find out, that going to the moon and minmus is enough to complete the techtree. Well you could probably complete the techtree by never leaving Kerbin if you like to complete "Part Test Contracts". I'd like to present my idea of how to improve the current system, which gives the player free choice throughout his career, but doesn't feel grindy and short. 1. Let the player decide what his ultimate goal is. - give him a way to observe possible goals through small satelite exploration or telescopes - give him a variaty of contracts from which he can choose his ultimate goal 2. Having this Ultimate goal contract the player now can begin part testing for parts he may need - For a Laythe mission you might want to give the player a selection of contracts, which allow unlocking parts through testing to fullfil his goal. - you might need rapier engines. So you get 1 - 3 contracts, which require you to test them around kerbin. - or you want to have a science laboratory. So you get a contract to fly the laboratory to one of the asteroids and test it out there. - etc. 3. Let him carry out his mission in all its glory whenever he thinks he's ready and set a new goal, or let him decide to improve his current mission, by adding goals. The most important thing to me is, that you can set your own goals and work towards them AND it feels like you got a bit closer to your goal. But you need to have a variety of ways to achieve your goal. I think this way you can plan 4 - 5 missions throughout the Kerbolsystem, without the feeling to just research everything anyways. And the best thing about is: It's a contract based system. If you don't like your contract you can cancel it and chose a new one. Or you can have multiple at once. You are totally free in your decision. I want you to note, that this is a very basic concept and it's not 100% perfect, but I think it is a better system than the current one. I want you to make suggestions and improve this concept. Or give constructive critique. Your Jhonny

I'm sorry to say that, but you ( _Augustus_ ) do not seem to be the person with enough knowledge to continue this project. There is a reason nobody made a mod that does, what StarSystems does. You need to be an experienced coder. If you aren't able to compile your mod, you are not able to handle the development of one of the most complex mods in KSP. Don't take that personally. It's just how it is...

We definetly need a subforum just for this project. One thread is just not managable enough to communicate. We need threads for mission goals, hardware, groundsupport and many more. I was on vacation for a week and it's a pain to follow this thread. Maybe ask a mod to create a subforum for this mission? If anything community related should have it's own subforum then this should be it.

Hey, how's the development of the HX bridge going? Can you give screens or info? Have you anything for me? Just a little teaser? I NEED MY FIX!!!! INSTANTLY!!!!! PLEASE help me...

So after I followed the discussion for a little while I had an idea, that lets the beginners explore the Kerbal 1.0x System, while knowing that this is not realism. 6.4x/10x should be a difficulty setting. I suggested that here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92886-Make-scale-of-solar-system-a-configurable-difficulty-setting

Hello, I know planetsize is on the not to suggest list, but in recent discussions I got the feel I need to suggest it anyways. First of all I'm playing 10x RSS/RO, 6.4x Kerbin System and 1.0x StarSystems. So I know what I'm talking about. I want to discuss my suggestion of making planetsize configurable as a difficult option. Because stock is fairly simple and can give some wrong assumptions about astrophysics and rocketscience, BUT stock is also fun and can give you the possibility of making cool things like giant space stations or space ships. Stock is a very good entry point for newcomers, who have no idea what they are doing and probably don't even know how something get's to space properly. So on the other hand stock gets pretty easy over time and leaves wrong assumptions about how physics work and how hard it is to get things to orbit. So here something like 6.4x(without TWR/ISP overhaul) or even 10x(with TWR/ISP overhaul) comes in. This is for experienced players who aren't into modding. (There are a lot of people, who don't even know about mods or more frightning some people don't even know there is a community with forums. And some people are afraid of modding.) There maybe should be another option somewhere in between, because the jump from stock to 6.4x/10x is pretty hard even for experienced stock players. 3.2x is a pretty good step in between. I would name these options 1.0x: "Arcade"; 3.2x "Advanced"; 6.4x "Expert"; 10x "Realistic". This gives people the possibility to get a good entry point, but doesn't leave false impressions about physics and difficulty in rocket science, because they know they only play "Arcady style" difficulty. When they start understanding orbital mechanics, orbital insertion, landing, aerobreaking and so on, they can start moving on to greater challenges. Please leave your opinion. I started this thread, because some people complained about giving people false impressions with unrealistic difficulty and physics in the 1.0x stock system. I agree with them, but since it is a game I want people to have fun and a fairly realistic (on a gameplay/balance point) start into the hard world of rocketscience.

Station Science!

Since stock game was getting to easy for an old veteran of spacetravel I started using 6.4x Kerbal System (RSS Mod required) and added a lot of other mods too. It was a challenge and you really have to watch your money. Reusability was required to succeed. DebRefund is a mod you need for this kind of challenge. Also KIDS and Ferram will help you. The rest is up to you. If you want more Realism (RT2, Lifesupport, Realchutes, Deadly Reentry), better Rockets (KW, NovaPunch), more science (ScanSat, Station Science) or spaceplanes (B9, Firespitter, Spaceplane+). I tell you 6.4x Kerbal System got me really started into this game. The challenge is enorm, but fun.

I tell you it is totally possible. I even got it working in 10 times RSS. No mods only stock 1.25m parts. In 6.4x I got a lunar flyby with 1.25 meter parts, but that is not needed. You get enough science from low and high orbit for 2.5m parts.

I have no idea about orbital mechanics in German I learned all the KSP thingis in English and it is very hard for me to explain stuff like orbital mechanics in my native language... Actually I'm wondering if other people who aren't native English speakers do have the same problem!?

I had a similar experience. I study computer science and we had to take an English class (I'm german) and for our grade we needed to hold a talk about anything we wanted. Of course I held my talk about orbital mechanics. Normally the talk should last 10 minutes, but it took on for full 45 minutes, because people kept asking questions and I answered them all. They thought I was a genius... they still think so. I got a 1.0 (it's an A). KSP is one of the greatest games, that children these days can play, because they learn science by having fun. They see the need for humanity to expand into space and what great things can be accomplished, if the right priorities are beeing set.

Did anyone else notice, that The ascent path was really steep? They where at 600km altitude with only 450km ground distance... Isn't that incredible inefficient?

But if they add things like life support, money and other things, you may be forced to do other things then just timewarp. Maybe if you timewarp too much your kerbals die or you run out of money and lose.

Just managed to visit every moon of the Jool system in one go. I landed on Vall, Pol and Bop with manned landers and put unmanned probes on Laythe and Tylo. I got all 5 Kerbals back home safely and got 5000 science out of it. I could have gotten more, if i didn't have send a flyby probe to the Jool system before, which got all Orbital science points.

Well if things like supplies life support and money come into play, you need to make money to support long term missions. I think at that point long term experiments could be implemented.

sorry dude didnt saw that thread since the title wasnt clear. Well I think my thread can be closed then.

Ok I saw someone suggesting that on a discussions thread and thought that would be ideal. Why couldn't we have a multistarsystem with a super mass star or black hole in the center? There are maybe 3 - 10 starsystem orbiting that supermass star/black hole. That would reduce travel time and fix the problem with realistic engines. We need no SciFi warp drive tech or something like that and have a realistic interstellar scenario. What do you think? Jhonny